Subject:
|
Re: A letter to Todd
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:03:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> > It is very clear there are a few people who agree with what you have
> > done, but the vast majority of us feel what you have done is without merit
> > and wrong.
>
> You certainly don't know that the vast majority feel that way. You know
> that about 10 to 12 highly vocal people are complaining and about 4 or 5
> generally quieter people are agreeing.
Te only thing I said was clear that was people agreed with you. And the vast
majority was a reference to the people who were in on the discussion.
>
> > You yourself agreed Lugnet is a "less fun place" now
>
> Now as in the moment -- not now as in going forward. Here is what I
> actually said:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=559
Yes, that is exactly what I said, did I misquote you or twist your words?
No, I did not do that. If I was speaking as in going foward, I would have
said so.
> I agreed with James Brown's personal feeling that LUGNET was less fun Friday
> than it was Thursday. I think that's true...a big noisy argument isn't fun.
No, it is not - but are you taking this as a "big noisy argument"? I am not,
I am looking at this as a discussion over a site we both love very much. If
you are taking it as an argument, then that would explain a few things to
me, one of whic is why you are being as defensive as you are.
> When it blows over, hopefully by Sunday or Monday, fun will resume. This is
> a speed bump. • I agree with you, Never said differently.
>
> > Now do you see the general tone in this completely random, but
> > representative selection of quotes? The amount of posts to this is
> > overwhelming, many things got lost in the fire storm that has been covering us.
>
> I read everything.
Good, I am glad you do, this is a good thing. But I waht I said is things
got lost, this happened because the thread was so large the tree structure
went away.
> > There has been statements made that Lego has and is diluting the structure
> > of Lugnet, how is this so?
>
> If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. But again, you've twisted
> my words. I believe what I said was that allowing the LEGO Company to
> conduct official company business in theme groups dilutes what the community
> was about and goes against why it was created.
Did I quote you on that? What I said was there has been statments made -
once again I _think_ you need to look at one of the Erics. I think your
repeating statmnent that I am misquoting you and twisting you words are
false every time, and have no proof. When I quote something you say I will
say you said this and put quotes around it, otherwise it is not quoting you.
And when I do this I am reading what you wrote, not recalling it from
memory. I agree with you that is what you said - I never
> There is nothing to debate.
Ok, but like I said this is not a debate, if I though it was a debate or
approached it as a debate then I would have moved it into the debate thread.
When you debate you try to change somebodys mind by telling them they are
wrong and you are right. This is not,and never has been what I was, or am
trying to do. I am treating this as a discussion between two adults,
nothing more.
> I know why Suzanne and I started LUGNET and it wasn't for LEGO to conduct
> comapny business in discussion groups that were established for fans to talk
> to fans. On other hand, we did set up a hierarchy of groups (lugnet.lego.*)
> which ARE intended for LEGO to conduct company business and related directly
> to fans. • Ok, that is your call and I respect that, always have.
>
> > From what I can tell, Jake is a Lugnetter - member #211
> > ( http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=211 ), so to say he cannot be
> > a fan because he works for them is just plain silly (and yes, this was
> > said).
>
> Well, if someone did say that -- and I don't remember seeing that -- I
> certainly wasn't the one who said it, so give it a rest.
Never said you were the one who said it, but it was said. I believe it went
along these lines: Lego is a company and cannot be a fan. You are treating
Jake as 'Lego' and not as a person. See below,
>
> > This brings me to my next point:
> > You and Eric, among a few others keep referring to the "LEGO Company" and
> > the "Lego Company" this and that - now the "Lego Company" cannot, and is not
> > talking to us here - a few employees are, they are not the "Lego Company",
> > they are individuals, just like you and me, but they have I job I wish I
> > had! Now it is obvious for anybody to see you are upset at the Lego
> > "company", but why punish the few of its employees that do post here under
> > the goodness of their hearts?
>
> Nobody is being punished, and you should not assume that all LEGO employees
> who post here now or in the past or in the future are always doing so under
> the goodness of their hearts. I'm not saying they aren't, I'm saying you
> shouldn't assume that they are.
Ok, but in my opinion it has not happened as of yet, and what I said is what
I meant. You may have a differing opinion, and you are entilted to, I am not
saying you are wrong for your opinion, but I *think* you are trying to say I
am wrong for mine. I am not trying to twist your words, that is how I am
reading what you wrote.
>
> > You have also said that the Lego Company is only out to make money, and that
> > is why they post here, now this has more holes than swiss cheese.
>
> Mark, I did not say that, and I am actually growing very tired of your
> constantly misquoting me and mischaracterizing nearly everything I say.
>
> I did not say that the LEGO Company is only out to make money, I said money
> was what it wanted from us (the fans), in response to Tim Courtney asking an
> open-ended question about what LEGO wanted from us (the fans). I also did
> not say or even imply that that is why they post here, and I never implied
> it was a bad thing.
I belive you are refering to this:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=428
This is one of the statments that imply they only want our money. And yes,
you said it was one of the reasons they post here.
> > The Lego company does not care who buys their "obsolete" sets, they will
> > sell if it is posted here or not - they do not care where the money comes
> > from, because it will come.
>
> That is actually very insightful of you, and you should think deeply about
> how the LEGO Company benefits from being "nice" to us in this way.
I think we benifited from it more then they did - they would have sold all
80something of the sets they did have if they told us about it or not. They
could have simply put it up on lego.com and not have told us anything about
it at all - the money would have gone to them regardless of who bought the
sets - but he knew we would want them so he let us know before anybody else
- they would have sold no matter what. So I thnk we are the ones who
beifited from it - but that is my opinion, you obiviously feel different,
and you have every right to.
>
> > Jake was nice enough to post that they had these
> > "obsolete" sets here because he knew, and was very correct in knowing we, as
> > a group, wanted these sets.
>
> Naturally. Brad mentioned long ago (more than a year ago) that he intended
> to hire people from the AFOL community who would have a good handle on such
> things.
Ok.
> > But you among others basically dumped all over
> > him for posting that info here.
>
> Anyone who "dumped all over him" (sic) was actually upset that it went into
> the main .announce group, and nothing more. After someone drew my attention
> to the misplaced post, I believe I asked Jake (politely) that futher such
> announcements go in the .announce.lsahs group.
Dumping on somebody is dumping on somebody, you can say it nice or be an ass
about it, bottom line is the same thing.
>
> > We have listened to the excuses you have given for doing what you did,
> > unfortunately, you have not listened to us about this.
>
> Don't assume that.
Ok, that was something I had ment to fix before I posted, it is my fault for
putting that up - what I had wanted to say was it had *appeared* that you
had not listened to us, I do apoligse for forgetting to fix that before I
had posted it. I am sorry for that.
>
> > Eric Joslin in admin.nntp 518 ( http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=518 )
> > "Spoken, truly, like someone who has no idea how the Real World works.
> > Sometimes I forget that not everyone on Lugnet is an adult.
> > eric"
>
> I believe Eric may have been under the impression that you were a 13-year-
> old. (I know it's not difficult for me to imagine that, given how you have
> worded things such as "That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever
> heard"[1]
So now who is making assumptions? And who is now twisting things around? I
am sorry if I grew up in, and around the Valley up in Los Angeles, and that
term is used by many people of all ages out there, even here in San Diego -
heck, my teachers at my tech school say things like that - I have refrained
from making any personal opinions about anybody here, it is wrong no matter
what you say, and the fact you said this somewhat offends me. So, plese lets
keep this on an adult level, ok?
> and your apparent tendency to read A and hear B.)
I read what it typed, nothing more.
>
> > So with that, I ask you, and challenge you: ask us what we want, listen to
> > us. This website was made for us - so show us we matter, and are wanted here
>
> This website was not made for screaming lunatic fans.
Are you saying I am a screaming lunatic fan? I am trying to haqve an adult
conversation with you, nothing more, nothing less.
> --Todd
I want to make it clear I am not trying to change anything here, I was
taught to say how I felt and to say it in a calm and rational way. I have no
ill feelings towards you (Todd) or anybody else here. I do love this site,
it has been very informative in many ways. I hope you are not taking any of
this the wrong way. I still am here for you if you need any information from
legoland for your wedding (I am going tomorrow), nothing has changed on this
end of the computer, and I hope nothing has changed on your end. I will not
further this discussion, or its twin any further, I have said what I wanted
to say, and that is good enough for me. The only way I will reply to any
more of this conversations if something completly out of line or untrue is
said about me, or what I said.
Mark P.
mfuss903@aol.com
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) A vast majority of a minority is a lesser minority... I still think you're overlooking the reason newsgroups are "grouped". If I want to read about a particular subject (be it Lego offers, trains, or how many AFOLs have "Lego friendly" pets), (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Todd was not making an assuption. As certain people here have made a rather big point of lately, Todd and I talk offline frequently- about a great variety of topics, including LEGO and Lugnet. Recently, while talking offline, the subject of (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Large portions of it. (...) BTW, I should clarify what I wrote when I said "I read everything" above. I meant that I _had read_ everything (on this thread), not that I _do read_ everything. In other words, the word "read" above that I was (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) You certainly don't know that the vast majority feel that way. You know that about 10 to 12 highly vocal people are complaining and about 4 or 5 generally quieter people are agreeing. (...) Now as in the moment -- not now as in going forward. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
